ON  RECEIVING  DONATIONS 

FROM 


BOSTON!  PRINTED  BY  PERKINS  AND  MARVIN. 


AMERICAN  BOARD  OF  COMMISSIONERS 
FOR  FOREIGN  MISSIONS. 


• 

DONATIONS  FROM  HOLDERS  OF  SLAVES. 

The  reason  for  publishing  the  following  letters,  in  the  pre- 
sent form  may  be  stated  in  few  words.  They  were  originally 
written  in  reply  to  letters  addressed  to  the  Secretaries  of  the 
Board,  on  the  propriety  of  receiving  donations  made  to  its 
treasury  by  those  who  hold  slaves.  To  avoid  the  necessity  of 
writing  on  the  subject  at  length,  when  inquiries  may  be  made 
upon  it  in  future,  this  method  of  making  known  the  views 
of  the  Committee  has  been  adopted.  The  letters  are  given 
entire,  and  in  their  original  shape,  that  any  one  to  whom  the 
pamphlet  may  be  sent,  may  the  more  readily  regard  the  state- 
ments and  considerations  contained  in  it,  as  being  addressed 
to  himself. 

Both  the  letters,  it  should  be  mentioned,  were  written  to 
ministers  of  the  gospel,  highly  esteemed  and  respected,  who 
have  given  unequivocal  evidence  of  their  attachment  to  the 
Board,  and  the  work  in  which  it  is  engaged. 

My  dear  Sir, — Your  favor  of  the came 

duly  to  hand,  and  has  been  submitted  to  the  Prudential 
Committee,  as  you  requested.  We  feel  greatly  obliged  by 
the  frank  and  Christian  spirit  which  characterizes  your 
letter,  as  well  as  by  the  confidence  in  the  Board  and  lively 
interest  in  its  objects,  which  you  express,  and  which  we 
have  ample  evidence  that  you  feel.  We  take  no  offence 
at  any  inquiry  or  suggestion  which  yourself  or  any  other 
such  friend  may  make,  in  such  a spirit  and  manner,  rela- 
tive to  the  proceedings  of  the  Board  ; and  in  reply  we  will 


2 


express  our  sentiments  without  reluctance  or  reserve.  If 
we  can  view  subjects  in  the  same  light  with  you,  we  shall 
be  glad  ; but  if  there  must  be  disagreement,  there  shall 
not  be  contention  or  unkindness.  No  principles  or  modes 
of  proceeding  on  the  subject  to  which  your  letter  relates 
have  been  adopted  by  the  Committee,  which  they  wish  to 
conceal,  or  which  they  think  are  incapable  of  defence. 
Still  the  liability  to  error  in  both  is  such,  as  should  dispose 
them  to  receive  kindly  and  thankfully  the  hints  and  reas- 
onings which  the  friends  of  the  Board  may  see  fit  to  com- 
municate. 

In  what  I am  about  to  write  now,  no  attempt  will  be 
made  to  reply  directly  to  the  six  reasons  which  you  adduce 
against  receiving  donations  from  those  who  hold  slaves  ; 
though  considerations  might,  perhaps,  be  advanced  on  this 
point,  which  would,  at  least,  detract  somewhat  from  their 
force  and  conclusiveness ; but  admitting,  for  the  present, 
that  the  reasons  are  well  founded,  some  practical  difficulties 
will  be  mentioned,  which  seem  to  lie  in  the  way  of  apply- 
ing the  principle  involved  in  them,  in  transacting  the 
business  of  the  Board  ; difficulties  so  numerous  and  great, 
that,  until  a suitable  method  of  removing  them  shall  be  de- 
vised, the  course  which  you  propose  cannot  well  be  adopted. 

But  before  proceeding  further,  I beg  leave  to  premise 
three  things. 

1.  The  Board,  in  its  corporate  capacity,  as  a benevo- 
lent and  Christian  institution,  has  nothing  to  do  with 
slavery.  It  was  organized  expressly  for  another  object ; 
and  to  use  its  influence  or  its  funds  for  removing  slavery,  or 
for  bearing  upon  it,  would  be  dishonest.  Its  members,  as 
individuals,  or  as  members  of  other  associations,  are  free 
to  act  as  they  please  on  this  and  all  other  subjects  ; but, 
as  members  of  the  Board , they  do  not  feel  obliged,  nor  at 
liberty,  to  look  after  and  condemn,  or  to  endeavor  to  put 


3 


down  every  thing  which  they  individually,  or  which  other 
good  men  may  think  to  be  wrong  and  wicked  in  the  com- 
munity. They  leave  all  works  of  this  nature,  not  fairly 
embraced  among  the  objects  for  which  the  Board  was 
organized,  to  others. 

2.  The  Board  and  its  officers  do  not  profess  to  know, 
and  cannot  generally  know,  the  character  and  motives  of 
those  who  contribute  to  its  funds,  or  the  sources  of  their 
income.  To  make  inquiries  on  these  points  would  proba- 
bly, by  most  persons,  be  deemed  impertinent.  A man 
from  Kentucky,  sends  to  the  treasury  of  the  Board,  one 
hundred  dollars  ; it  is  received;  and  the  donor  is,  by  the 
rules  of  the  Board,  constituted  an  honorary  member. 
The  treasurer  does  not  feel  under  obligations,  before  re- 
ceiving the  money,  to  ascertain  whether  the  donor  obtained 
it  honestly  or  not,  or  whether  he  is  a good  citizen,  or  a 
moral  man.  A case  might  occur,  of  so  marked  and  noto- 
rious a character,  that  the  donation  ought  to  be  refused. 
But  such  cases  will  be  rare,  as  few  grossly  immoral  or 
dishonest  men  are  interested  in  the  objects  of  the  Board, 
or  disposed  to  use  their  property  to  promote  them. 

3.  In  your  letter  you  remark,  that  many  who  profess 
to  be  the  friends  of  missions,  and  you  subsequently  say 
that  you  class  yourself  among  them,  think  it  wrong  to 
solicit  funds  from  those  who  hold  slaves,  “ for  the  same 
reasons  that  they  would  regard  it  wrong  to  apply  to  a 
company  of  counterfeiters  and  highway  robbers,  or  any 
other  company  who  gained  their  subsistence  and  wealth 
by  means  of  systematized  wickedness,  for  a portion  of 
their  income,  by  means  of  which  to  carry  on  this  great 
and  glorious  cause.” — We  cannot  regard  donations  from 
those  who  hold  slaves  in  the  same  light  that  we  should 
donations  from  counterfeiters  and  highwaymen.  There 
seems  to  us  to  be  this  wide  and  obvious  difference  : the 


4 


donors  in  one  case  are,  as  you  will  admit,  exclusive  of  the 
fact  of  their  holding  slaves,  almost  without  exception,  good 
citizens,  honest  and  moral  men,  and  a large  portion  of 
them  reputable  professors  of  religion  ; and  in  general,  they 
are  persons  seriously  disposed,  and  professedly,  and  so  far 
as  we  have  any  evidence,  really  desirous,  by  the  dissemi- 
nation of  Christianity,  to  convert  the  heathen  to  God. 
This,  we  suppose,  cannot  be  said  of  the  other  classes  of 
persons  mentioned  by  you. 

Having  made  these  remarks,  I proceed  to  say,  that  the 
general  principle  which  seems  to  lie  at  the  foundation 
of  the  several  reasons  which  you  allege  against  receiv- 
ing donations  from  slave-holders  into  the  treasury  of  the 
Board,  I suppose  to  be  this : Donations  of  property,  the 
acquisition  of  which  involves  sin,  should  be  rejected.  Or, 
to  render  it  a little  more  comprehensive,  and  to  make  it 
more  appropriately  the  basis  of  some  of  your  remarks,  it 
should  be  : Persons  living  in  the  practice  of  certain  sins 
should  not  be  permitted,  by  means  of  their  property,  to  aid 
in  such  a work  as  that  in  which  the  Board  is  engaged. 

Without  attempting,  as  I before  said,  to  decide  whether 
this  principle,  in  all  its  extent,  is  correct  or  not,  let  us 
look  for  a moment  at  some  of  the  difficulties  which  must 
be  met  in  its  application  to  the  case  before  us. 

One  important  question  to  be  settled  on  this  subject  is, 
How  much  of  sin  must  be  involved  in  the  acquisition  of  a 
man’s  property,  before  we  shall  be  bound  to  reject  it  ? 
Perhaps  there  are  few  men,  in  any  department  of  business, 
whose  property  has  not  been,  to  some  extent,  and  in  some 
manner,  increased  by  some  wrong  course  of  proceeding, 
either  known  or  unknown  to  themselves.  Probably  your- 
self and  they  who  view  the  subject  as  you  do,  readily 
admit,  that  even  among  those  who  hold  slaves  by  a legal 
tenure,  there  may  be,  so  far  as  this  view  of  their  character 


5 


is  concerned,  different  degrees  of  sinfulness.  For  the  sake 
of  illustrating  the  case,  let  us  admit  that  the  profane  and 
unfeeling  master,  who  regards  his  negroes  simply  as  he 
does  his  cattle,  is  not  to  be  suffered  to  contribute  money 
acquired  by  their  labor.  He  is  too  wicked,  and  his  wealth 
is  too  much  the  fruits  of  oppression  and  cruel  injustice  to 
be  received.  What  then  will  you  say  of  the  planter  in 
some  retired  part  of  the  Carolinas,  who  is  a reputable  pro- 
fessor of  religion,  and,  as  you  would  admit,  a humane  and 
upright  man  in  every  thing,  except  holding  slaves ; who 
inherited  his  negroes  and  grew  up  with  all  the  habits  and 
prejudices  naturally  springing  out  of  such  circumstances ; 
w’ho  has  read,  or  heard,  or  thought  little  on  the  subject, 
and  consequently  regards  the  relation  of  master  and  slave 
very  nearly  as  his  father  did  fifty  years  ago  ? Shall  he  be 
permitted  to  contribute  ? — If  not,  shall  the  master,  who, 
possessing  a similar  character,  but  with  more  intelligence 
and  reflection  than  the  one  just  referred  to,  admits  slavery 
to  be  wrong  and  indefensible,  but  sees  no  way  in  which 
he  can  meliorate  the  condition  of  those  under  his  care  ; 
and  therefore  continues  the  relation,  instructing  them, 
providing  for  them,  and  treating  them  kindly  ? May  he 
contribute  ? — If  he  may  not,  what  will  you  say  of  the 
man,  who,  with  all  the  feelings  of  the  last,  has  actually 
formed  his  plan  for  emancipating  his  negroes,  and  is 
hastening  it  on  to  its  consummation,  though  he  may  feel 
obliged  to  sustain  the  legal  relation  a year  longer  ? 
Shall  he  be  allowed  to  contribute  now  ? or  must  he  wait 
till  his  negroes  have  quite  gone  from  under  his  hand  ? Or 
shall  he  not  be  permitted  to  contribute  at  all  from  the 
property  which  may  have  been  the  avails  of  slave  labor? 

Again,  How  large  a portion  of  a man's  income  must  be 
the  fruit  of  his  wrong  doing, — or,  as  in  the  case  before  us, 
— of  slave-holding,  before  we  are  bound  to  reject  it?  A 
1* 


6 


man  owns  a plantation  which  is  worked  by  slaves.  The 
income  of  it  is,  of  course,  the  joint  avails  of  the  sum  in- 
vested in  buildings,  land,  implements,  and  of  his  own  skill 
and  management,  and  of  slave  labor.  How  much  of  all 
the  income  from  that  plantation  is  the  product  of  slave 
labor,  and  justly  due  to  the  slave?  Obviously  all  of  it  is 
not,  any  more  than  all  the  profits  of  a voyage  belong  to 
the  sailors,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  owner  of  ship  and  cargo, 
and  the  officers  who  managed  it ; or  any  more  than  the 
avails  of  all  the  cloth  manufactured  at  a mill  belong  to 
those  who  work  at  the  spindles  and  looms,  to  the  exclusion 
of  those  who  own  the  buildings,  machinery,  and  stock, 
and  who  mature  and  execute  all  the  plans  and  make  the 
contracts.  A portion,  then,  and  obviously  a considerable 
portion  too,  of  the  products  of  a plantation  does  not  belong 
to  the  slaves  who  work  on  it,  and  does  belong  to  its  owner 
and  manager,  and  when  appropriated  to  his  use,  is  not  to 
be  regarded  as  the  fruits  of  robbery,  or  oppression,  or  in- 
justice. Is  a man,  then,  who  desires  to  do  good,  to  be 
excluded  from  the  privilege  of  doing  it,  because  that  some 
portion  of  his  property  has  been  obtained  by  means  which 
we,  though  he  may  not,  deem  unjust  ? Suppose  that  a 
planter,  mechanic,  or  merchant,  carries  forward  his  busi- 
ness by  means  of  ten  men,  only  one  of  whom  is  a slave, 
(and  many  cases  like  this  might  probably  be  found  in 
Western  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee,)  are  all  his 
gains  so  contaminated  by  his  relation  to  this  slave,  that 
his  offering  must  be  rejected  ? 

Again,  How  directly  must  a man's  income  arise  from 
the  avails  of  slave  labor,  before  his  donations  must  be  re- 
jected ? What  will  you  say  to  the  Charleston  or  Mobile 
merchant,  who  buys  and  sells  cotton  ? or  of  the  New  York 
and  Boston  shippers  who  carry  it  ? or  of  the  New  England 
manufacturers  who  work  it  into  cloth  ? or  of  the  wholesale 


7 


and  retail  dealers  who  scatter  it  through  the  community  1 
All  these  make  their  profits  to  a greater  or  less  extent, 
and  more  or  less  directly,  from  the  avails  of  slave  labor. 
Are  we  to  break  off  all  cooperation  with  any  or  all  of  them, 
and  refuse  their  donations,  and  class  them  with  the  offer- 
ings of  counterfeiters  and  highwaymen  ? Which  makes 
the  most  net  profit  upon  cotton,  the  planter,  the  shipper, 
or  the  manufacturer,  it  may  be  difficult  to  determine. 

Similar  views  may  be  taken  respecting  the  gains  of  the 
producer,  the  carrier,  and  the  vender  of  rice,  sugar,  to- 
bacco, and  all  other  articles  which  are  exported  from  a 
slave-holding  community.  Nor  does  the  connection  be- 
tween slavery  and  the  gains  of  trade  cease  here.  The 
New  England  merchant  who  sends  his  shoes  and  cloth, 
and  other  articles  of  manufacture  or  produce  to  a southern 
market,  even  if  he  receives  cash  in  payment,  receives  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent  the  avails  of  slave  labor,  and  of 
course  a portion  of  his  gains  originate  there.  Indeed  the 
subject  has  a thousand  ramifications,  in  each  of  which 
the  same  general  principle  is  involved,  and  in  deciding 
the  point  as  you  propose,  we  must  make  a decision  which 
shall  cover  much  ground. 

But  are  the  donations  of  slave-holders,  and  of  others 
who  derive  gain  from  slave  labor,  the  only  donations 
which  must  he  rejected  ? As  it  is  not  easy  to  measure 
the  guilt  of  different  men,  so  it  is  not  easy  to  measure  the 
sin  involved  in  particular  courses  of  conduct.  Much  pre- 
sumption is  manifest  in  our  attempts  to  do  either  to  any 
considerable  extent.  The  zealous  advocate  for  peace 
may  see  more  sin  in  war  and  the  preparations  for  it,  than 
in  any  thing  else  ; and  may  think  that  no  offerings  will  be 
so  offensive  to  God  as  those  which  are  made  from  the  wages 
of  the  soldier.  And,  for  aught  that  I can  see,  the  offerings 
of  the  smith  and  the  founder  who  manuafacture  the  weap- 


8 


ons,  and  of  those  who  furnish  the  clothing  and  provisions 
for  the  army,  must  come  under  the  same  condemnation. 

The  temperance  agent  may  think  that  none  are  so  great 
sinners  as  they  who  manufacture  or  deal  in  intoxicating 
liquors,  and  that  they  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  aid  with 
their  donations  any  object  of  religion  or  benevolence.  And 
then  he  would  involve  the  mechanics  who  erected  and  fur- 
nished the  distillery,  the  farmer  who  produced  the  grain, 
and  the  carrier  who  transported  the  raw  material,  or  the 
manufactured  article,  and  all  others  who  in  any  manner 
made  a profit  from  this  branch  of  business. 

So  we  might  proceed  and  point  out  one  branch  of  busi- 
ness after  another,  which  many,  if  not  most  honest  men 
think  is  injurious  to  the  community,  and  the  avails  of 
which,  on  the  principle  which  seems  to  me  to  be  involved 
in  your  letter,  ought  not  to  be  received  into  the  treasuries 
of  societies  designed  to  promote  benevolent  and  religious 
objects. 

But  here  other  questions  arise  of  a very  practical  char- 
acter, and  at  the  same  time  encompassed  with  not  a little 
difficulty.  Who  is  to  decide  what  branches  of  business, 
or  what  practices  in  the  prosecution  of  them,  do  involve 
so  much  of  wrong  and  wickedness  that  the  avails  should 
be  rejected  by  all  good  men  engaged  in  a good  object  ? 
Who  is  to  decide  how  much  a man  must  be  concerned  in 
these  proscribed  pursuits  and  practices,  before  his  dona- 
tions must  be  rejected  ? 

But  supposing  general  rules  for  deciding  these  points 
to  be  fixed,  before  what  tribunal  shall  the  individual  donors 
be  brought,  and  on  what  evidence  shall  we  rely  ? Shall 
every  treasurer  be  constituted  an  inquisitor  on  this  subject, 
and  his  office  be  made  a hall  of  examination,  where  the 
character,  and  occupation,  and  sources  of  income  of  every 
man  who  offers  money  shall  be  inquired  into ; and  before 


9 


he  shall  be  permitted  to  leave  his  gift,  it  shall  be  ascertained 
that  he  is  not  a soldier,  nor  a slave-holder,  nor  a distiller, 
nor  a dealer  in  intoxicating  liquors,  nor  a gambler,  nor  a 
thief,  nor  concerned  in  lotteries,  etc.?  How  shall  this  be 
done  ? Shall  we  put  the  donor  under  oath ; or  correspond 
with  his  neighbors ; or  make  him  bring  a certificate  from 
men  known  to  be  good  and  true? 

But  you  may  say  that  all  this  minuteness  in  the  process 
is  unnecessary,  and  is  embarrassing  the  subject  to  no 
purpose.  I honestly  think,  however,  that  every  line  I have 
written  has  a real  and  practical  connection  with  the  sub- 
ject, and  that  when  our  Board  shall  decide  to  act  in  con- 
formity with  the  suggestion  in  your  letter,  their  examination 
and  decision  must  cover  this  whole  ground.  How  other- 
wise can  they  act  equitably  and  on  principle  ? 

Perhaps  you  will  say  that  it  is  enough  to  decide  that  no 
donations  shall  be  received  from  within  the  bounds  of  any 
slave-holding  State.  But  where  would  this  lead  us;  or 
rather,  where  shall  we  start  from?  Shall  we  begin  with 
New  York,  and  reject  your  donation,  because  one  person 
in  thirty  thousand  in  your  State  is  a slave  ? Or  shall  we 
begin  with  Connecticut,  and  reject  the  donations  from  all 
its  churches,  because  one  person  in  fifteen  thousand  is  a 
slave  there  ? Or  shall  we  begin  with  Pennsylvania,  and 
reject  donations  from  that  State,  because  one  person  in 
three  thousand  is  a slave  there?  Or  with  New  Jersey, 
because  one  person  in  a hundred  and  fifty  is  a slave  there? 
Or  with  Delaware,  because  one  in  thirty  is  a slave  there  ? 
Or  with  Maryland,  because  one  in  five  is  a slave  there? 
Or  with  Tennessee,  because  one  in  four  is  a slave  there? 
Or  with  Virginia,  where  one  in  three  is  a slave?  Or  with 
Louisiana,  where  one  in  two  is  a slave  ? Or  with  South 
Carolina,  where  four  out  of  seven  are  slaves?  Where 
will  you  draw  the  line?  What  boundaries  will  you  pre- 
scribe ? 


10 


Perhaps  you  will  say,  that  donations  must  be  rejected 
from  those  States  which  are  taking  no  measures  to  abolish 
slavery,  and  whose  rulers,  by  the  consent  of  the  people, 
uphold  and  defend  it.  Here  questions  might  arise  which 
it  would  be  difficult  to  answer  satisfactorily.  In  respect 
to  some  States,  we  might,  perhaps,  properly  decide  that  they 
do  uphold  and  defend  slavery ; and  in  respect  to  others , 
where  some  slaves  still  remain,  we  might  decide  that 
they  do  not  uphold  and  defend  it.  But  in  respect  to  many 
others  it  might  be  impossible  even  to  form  an  opinion 
whether  the  rulers  and  the  mass  of  the  population  do 
uphold  and  defend  it,  or  not.  What  shall  be  the  decision 
relative  to  Delaware  and  Maryland,  not  to  add  Virginia, 
Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  Missouri  ? 

But  supposing  it  granted,  that,  in  excluding  men  from 
cooperation  with  us  in  the  work  of  missions,  State  lines 
are  to  be  followed ; and  that  all  the  States  south  of  Penn- 
sylvania, and  of  the  Ohio  river,  and  those  west  of  the 
Mississippi,  are  to  be  proscribed ; will  it  be  equitable  and 
Christian  to  shut  out  from  participation  in  this  work  every 
church  member  in  Delaware,  not  one-half  of  whom  own  a 
slave,  or  derive  profit  from  slave  labor  more  than  you  or  I? 
Will  you  shut  out  all  those  of  Virginia  west  of  the 
mountains,  where  comparatively  few  slaves  are  found,  and 
where,  as  I heard  a very  intelligent  gentleman  from  that 
quarter  say  in  a public  meeting  a few  years  ago,  the  people 
are  as  thoroughly  anti-slavery  as  are  the  inhabitants  of 
Massachusetts?  Will  you  exclude  every  man  in  East 
Tennessee,  of  a majority  of  whom  the  same  may  probably 
with  truth  be  said,  and  where  has  existed,  I believe,  the 
only  newspaper  avowedly  in  favor  of  emancipation,  to  be 
found  within  the  general  limits  just  now  mentioned?  Will 
you  exclude  all  Kentucky,  in  whose  Synod  the  subject  of 
slavery  has  been  openly,  repeatedly,  and  thoroughly  dis- 


11 


cussed,  the  continuance  of  the  system  disapproved  by  a 
considerable  majority,  and  measures  for  speedy  eman- 
cipation recommended ; and  where  it  is  to  be  presumed 
that  similar  views  are  entertained  by  a majority  of  the 
church  members  ? Will  you  exclude  the  Quaker,  the 
Scotch,  and  the  Moravian  settlements  in  the  central  and 
western  parts  of  North  Carolina,  by  whom  few  or  no 
slaves  are  held,  and  who  are  decidedly  opposed  to  the 
system?  Will  you  exclude  the  many  Christian  merchants 
and  mechanics  in  the  southern  cities,  who  do  not  own 
slaves,  and  have  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  them  in  any 
manner  ? Will  you  exclude  the  many  preachers  and 
teachers  who  cross  the  line  before  mentioned  without  ever 
possessing  a slave ; or  those  who,  with  the  same  principles 
and  practice  on  this  subject,  feel  compelled  by  disease  to 
seek  a residence  in  a southern  climate  ? Shall  the  gifts 
and  cooperation  of  any  or  all  of  these  classes  of  persons 
be  spurned  by  our  several  religious  and  benevolent  in- 
stitutions? If  not,  it  must  be  asked  again,  How  shall  the 
line  designed  to  mark  the  degree  of  criminality,  be  drawn 
between  him  whose  gift  is  to  be  received,  and  him  whose 
gift  is  to  be  rejected  ? or,  How,  when  the  gifts  are  sent  to 
the  treasurer  or  agent  a hundred  or  a thousand  miles  off, 
is  he  to  ascertain  which  comes  from  the  man  whom  we 
may  recognize  as  a fellow  laborer,  and  which  from  him 
whom  we  must  disown  as  no  more  worthy  of  fellowship  in 
such  a cause  than  a ‘counterfeiter  or  highwayman  V 
But  perhaps  you  will  say,  that,  if  the  Board  cannot 
properly  adopt  rules  excluding  donations  from  within  the 
limits  of  slave-holding  States,  it  may,  at  least,  refrain  from 
sending  agents  there  to  solicit  them.  If,  however,  it  is 
right  to  receive  donations  from  the  classes  of  men  just 
referred  to,  is  it  not  right  to  furnish  them  with  facilities 
for  transmitting  their  offerings?  If  it  is  the  duty  of  these 


12 


men  to  give,  is  it  not  right  for  the  Board  to  send  agents 
there  to  tell  them  of  their  duty  and  urge  them  to  perform 
it?  to  spread  out  before  them  the  information,  and  enforce 
the  arguments  and  motives  which  may  lead  them  to  regular 
and  increased  liberality?  To  discriminate  and  fix  limits 
where  we  may,  or  where  we  may  not  send  agents,  would 
be  as  difficult  as  to  decide  from  within  what  limits  we 
might  or  might  not  receive  donations.  Further  still,  Is  it 
not  the  duty  of  the  Board,  holding  the  place  and  making 
the  professions  which  it  does, — a duty  which  its  members 
owe  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  to  the  church,  and  to  the  heathen, 
— to  use  all  suitable  means  within  their  power,  to  bring  all 
men  to  co-operate  promptly  and  vigorously  in  disseminating 
Christian  knowledge  among  all  nations  ? Is  it  wrong  to 
urge  the  performance  of  their  duty  in  this  respect,  on  every 
class  of  the  Christian  community,  whatever  may  be  their 
dwelling  place,  their  character,  or  occupation, — on  the 
infidel  even,  the  Mohammedan,  and  the  idolater?  The 
Board  has  information  on  the  subject;  has  bestowed  much 
thought  upon  it;  may  be  supposed  to  feel  deeply;  possesses 
the  means  of  exerting  influence ; — which,  altogether,  render 
its  situation  peculiar,  and  impose  peculiar  obligations  and 
responsibility.  Shall  the  Board  neglect  to  avail  itself  of  all 
these  in  regard  to  the  whole  class  of  men  in  question  ? 

But  it  may  be  said  that  the  agents  of  the  Board  must 
first  enjoin  it  on  all  such  persons  to  renounce  slave-holding. 
Why  is  it  not  as  incumbent  on  them  before  they  deliver 
their  message,  first  to  deliver  a lecture  on  licentiousness,  or 
war,  or  intemperance  ? Is  it  never  allowable  to  permit,  or 
even  urge  men  to  perform  one  duty,  while  we  know  that 
they  neglect  another  ? * A good  man  goes  from  village 

* On  this  point  I would  refer  you  to  the  Anti-Slavery  Record,  for  October, 
objection  fourth,  page  third  of  the  cover,  which  I have  just  read,  and  where 
correct  principles  seem  to  me  to  be  well  expressed  and  maintained.  “It  is  objected 
to  the  abolition  enterprise,  that  unholy  men  are  engaged  in  it.  This  is  doubtless 


13 


to  village,  lecturing  on  astronomy,  or  history,  or  chemistry, 
and  does  not  say  a word  about  repentance  or  the  atone- 
ment, though  the  majority  of  his  hearers  may  be  neglecting 
both.  Does  he  do  right  ? or  must  he  never  say  any  more 
on  these  subjects  until  he  find  an  assembly  who  have  all 
repented  and  believed  in  Christ?  The  Board  sends  its 
agents  to  Virginia,  and  they  preach  only  on  missions  to 
the  heathen,  and  say  nothing  in  their  public  addresses  for 
or  against  slavery.  The  Anti-Slavery  Society  sends  its 
agents  to  the  same  field,  and  they  preach  only  on  the 
abolition  of  slavery.  The  Home  Missionary  Society  sends 
its  missionaries  there,  and  they  preach  on  Christian  doc- 
trines and  duties  generally.  Why  should  the  Board  com- 
plain of  the  Anti-Slavery  Society  that  its  agents  do  not 
lecture  on  missions ; or  the  Anti-Slavery  Society  complain 
of  the  Board  that  its  agents  do  not  urge  the  abolition  of 
slavery;  or  the  Home  Missionary  Society  complain  of  the 
agents  of  either,  because  they  do  not  preach  repentance 
and  faith  ? 

The  Board,  dear  Sir,  does  not  pretend  to  be  cutting 
one  wide  swath  through  the  world,  with  the  aim  and  ex- 
pectation of  clearing  it,  alone  and  at  once,  of  all  the  sins, 
and  wrongs,  and  miseries  which  infest  it.  The  Board  is 
attending  to  one  thing — the  conversion  of  the  heathen  to 
God, — while  it  leaves  other  associations  to  attend  to  other 

too  true.  But  does  it  impair  the  truth  of  abolition  principles?  Does  it  stamp 
unholiness  upon  abolition  measures?  Why,  we  might  as  well  deny  the  truth  of 
the  multiplication  table  because  it  is  believed  in  and  practised  upon  by  unholy 
men.  If  I have  right  principles  and  a good  object,  can  they  be  the  less  worthy 
because  wicked  men  unite  with  me  in  avowing  the  principles  and  promoting  the 
object?  By  agreeing  and  acting  with  them  wherein  they  are  right,  do  I become 
responsible  for  all  things  wherein  they  are  wrong?  Were  we  to  be  influenced  by 
this  objection,  it  is  quite  possible  that  there  are  not  in  the  world  men  enough  who 
agree  to  think  each  other  good  and  holy,  to  do  it.  But  if  a man  has  holiness 
enough  to  hate  slavery  and  to  love  his  fellow  men,  why  should  he  not  be  en- 
couraged to  exercise  it,  even  if  he  have  a bad  creed  or  none  at  all  ? And  why  should 
not  the  objector  aid  and  encourage  him  in  well-doing  ? Whose  spirit  was  it  to 
shun  a good  deed  because  a Samaritan  did  it  ?” 

2 


14 


things;  and  in  the  mean  time,  its  members  will  sympathise 
with  them,  and  pray  for  and  rejoice  in  their  success,  just 
so  far  as  their  objects  seem  to  be  prosecuted  with  a Chris- 
tian spirit,  and  promise,  in  their  result,  to  promote  God’s 
glory  and  the  welfare  of  men.  The  same  community  and 
the  same  individuals  may  patronize  any  number  or  all  of 
the  various  religious  and  benevolent  enterprises  of  the 
day;  but  in  extending  their  aid  to  them  severally,  why 
should  they  not  act  through  the  organization  and  agency 
appropriate  to  each,  without  requiring  one  organization 
or  its  agents,  to  encroach  on  the  appropriate  sphere  of 
another  and  do  its  work  ? We  have  supposed  that  a 
division  of  labor  was  as  desirable  and  advantageous  in 
accomplishing  great  moral  and  philanthropic  objects,  as 
in  intellectual  pursuits,  or  those  which  require  manual 
labor  and  skill ; and  we  have  supposed,  too,  that  one  of 
the  brightest  features  of  the  times — one  which  gave  the 
fairest  promise  that  this  world  would  ultimately  be  re- 
covered from  its  state  of  guilt  and  ruin — was  the  fact, 
that  for  almost  every  class  of  evils  which  man  can  inflict 
or  suffer,  there  is  an  association  somewhere,  designed  and 
endeavoring  to  apply  the  appropriate  remedy;  and  that 
over  that  evil,  chosen  men  are  pouring  out  their  feelings 
and  prayers,  and  toward  its  removal  they  are  directing 
their  best  thoughts  and  labors.  Is  it  wise  to  destroy  this 
arrangement,  and  in  place  of  it  impose  what  are  now  the 
duties  of  all  these  associations  and  agents,  acting  in  their 
several  spheres,  upon  one  of  them?  Or  while  they  all 
exist,  is  it  wise  to  disturb  the  harmony  of  their  action  by 
inducing  one  to  encroach  on  the  sphere  of  another,  and 
thus  lay  the  foundation  for  jealousy,  fault-finding,  and 
counteraction  ? 

I am  almost  ashamed,  dear  Sir,  to  tax  your  patience  by 
so  long  a letter ; and  it  is  a subject  of  regret  that  it  has 


15 


been  so  long  delayed.  For  the  former  my  apology  is,  that 
it  did  not  seem  easy  to  despatch  the  subject,  as  it  presented 
itself,  in  less  compass;  and  for  the  latter,  I have  only  to  say, 
that  the  business  before  the  Committee  would  not  permit 
them  at  an  earlier  day  to  consider  your  communication. 

Praying  that  the  time  may  soon  arrive  when  all  who  love 
and  desire  to  serve  our  common  God  and  Saviour,  may  see 
eye  to  eye  on  all  subjects  relating  to  his  glory  and  human 
welfare ; and  that  in  the  mean  time  we  may  all  in  gentleness 
and  forbearance  cultivate  the  spirit  of  our  Master, 

I am,  dear  Sir,  very  respectfully  and 

affectionately,  your  servant  in  Christ. 


The  remaining  letter  was  written  about  two  years  earlier 
than  the  foregoing.  It  contains,  as  will  be  seen,  some  of  the 
sentiments  found  on  the  preceding  pages,  but  in  connection 
with  a more  general  view  of  the  subject.  The  remarks  assumed 
their  present  shape  in  order  to  reply  to  the  inquiry,  whether 
the  Board  ought  not,  in  some  public  manner,  to  express  its 
disapprobation  of  slavery  and  slaveholders. 

Dear  Sir, — In  reply  to  the  suggestions  contained  in 

your  favor  of , relating  to  the  course  to  be  pursued 

by  the  Board  or  the  Prudential  Committee  in  respect  to 
slavery,  I can  make  but  a few  remarks.  We  have  sup- 
posed, after  much  thought  on  the  subject,  and,  I trust, 
some  sincere  prayer  for  heavenly  guidance,  that,  as  a 
society , the  Board  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  of  the 
questions  respecting  reformation  of  morals,  or  political 
abuses,  any  further  than  these  evils  have  an  obvious  and 
specific  bearing  on  the  work  which  the  Board  is  attempt- 
ing, through  divine  aid,  to  accomplish  among  the  hea- 
then. If  any  evils  or  abuses,  moral  or  political,  whose 


16 


seat  is  in  this  country,  extend  themselves,  so  as  to  pre- 
sent hindrances  to  our  work  abroad,  we  suppose  it  to  be 
proper  for  us  to  lay  the  facts  before  our  community  at 
home,  and  leave  public  sentiment,  acting  directly,  or 
through  appropriate  organized  institutions,  or  by  the  laws 
of  the  country,  to  effect  a remedy.  For  example,  if  our 
licentious  men  go  to  the  Sandwich  Islands,  and  there  act 
our  their  licentiousness,  to  corrupt  the  inhabitants  and 
hinder  the  work  of  our  missionaries,  we  state  the  facts, 
and  leave  the  community  to  work  the  cure.  So  if  our 
dealers  in  intoxicating  liquors  go  there  to  do  their  work 
of  death,  we  state  the  facts,  and  turn  the  perpetrators  over 
to  our  temperance  societies  to  reform  them.  We  have 
taken  this  course  in  regard  to  both  these  classes  of  persons. 
So,  if  the  slave-trader  from  our  country  should  go  to  the 
vicinity  of  one  of  our  African  missions,  and  there,  by  his 
inhuman  traffic,  should  spread  consternation  and  misery 
among  the  people  and  retard  our  work,  we  must  make  his 
wickedness  known,  and  leave  him  to  the  reprobation  of 
the  community  and  the  punishment  of  the  laws.  But  we 
have  never  supposed  it  to  be  duty  or  wisdom  in  the  Board 
to  adopt  any  direct  measures  for  suppressing  licentious- 
ness, or  intemperance,  or  any  similar  evil  at  home;  nor 
does  it  seem  to  us,  now,  to  be  required  of  the  Board  to 
take  any  stand  against  slavery  as  it  exists  in  our  country, 
or  against  any  other  abuses  or  immoralities  sanctioned  by 
our  government, — such  as  Sabbath  mails,  Sabbath  drills 
in  the  army,  etc.  If  any  proceeding  of  the  government 
should  bear  directly  on  our  missionary  operations,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Cherokees,  we  must  state  the  case  and 
pursue  the  course  which  duty  seemed  to  point  out  for 
remedying  the  evil,  and  leave  the  result  to  the  providence 
of  God. 

The  object  of  the  Board  is  specific  and  simple — the 


17 


conversion  of  the  nations  to  Christianity— an  intelligent, 
hearty  Christianity.  All  persons  who  will  labor  with  us 
honestly  in  this  work,  we  receive  and  acknowledge  as 
fellow-laborers.  They  may  be  very  imperfect  Christians 
themselves,  manifesting  glaring  inconsistencies,  and,  in 
the  opinion  of  large  portions  of  the  community,  they  may 
be  guilty  of  gross  sins ; yet  if  they  say  that  a conviction 
of  duty  compels  them  to  aid  in  our  work,  why  should  we 
reject  them  ? We  say,  Never  prevent  a man  from  doing 
one  duty  because  he  does  not  acknowledge  or  perform 
another.  Performing  one  duty,  honestly  and  steadily, 
seems  to  us  to  be  the  best  method  of  coming  to  a knowl- 
edge and  performance  of  all  others;  and  the  neglect  of 
one  known  duty  seems  the  surest  way  to  keep  from  know- 
ing and  performing  others.  If  our  brethren  at  the  South 
will  not  do  all  which  we  think  they  ought,  still,  let  them 
do  what  they  admit  and  are  willing  to  perform  as  duty. 
If  the  dealer  in  ardent  spirits  or  the  slaveholder  brings 
money  to  our  treasury,  we  see  no  propriety  in  asking  him 
how  he  obtained  it  or  in  refusing  to  receive  it.  We  take 
it  and  make  the  best  use  we  can  of  it,  though  there  may 
have  been  sin  in  the  manner  of  obtaining  it.  Perhaps 
scarcely  any  man  conducts  his  business  wholly  without 
sin.  It  may  be  inseparable  from  the  business  itself,  or  it 
may  be  in  his  manner  of  prosecuting  it;  and  it  may  be 
perceived  or  unperceived  by  him.  The  difficulty  lies  in 
drawing  a line  and  saying  that  the  gains  of  a business 
which  has  more  than  this  specific  amount  of  sin  in  it  shall 
not  be  received.  Here  casuists  would  disagree  endlessly. 
We  suppose  that,  with  exception  of  some  classes  of  sinners 
who  are  not  at  all  likely  to  offer  money  to  our  object,  we 
are  to  receive  the  contributions,  as  Paul  directed  the 
Corinthian  Christians  to  take  meats  sold  in  the  shambles, 
or  set  before  them  at  a feast,  “ asking  no  questions  for 


18 


conscience  sake ; ” believing,  if  it  is  rightly  appropriated, 
and  in  a right  spirit,  it  will  be,  as  the  same  apostle  told 
Timothy  in  a similar  case,  “ sanctified  by  the  word  of 
God  and  prayer.” 

Proceeding  on  this  ground,  we  leave  the  societies  for 
moral  reform  to  do  their  appropriate  work ; the  abolition 
societies  to  do  theirs ; the  temperance  societies  to  do 
theirs ; — and  so  with  regard  to  those  institutions  designed 
not  so  much  to  rectify  particular  evils,  as  to  accomplish 
more  immediately  a positive  good — as  those  for  home 
missions,  education  for  the  ministry,  the  distribution  of 
Bibles,  tracts,  etc.;  while  the  Board  makes  it  the  imme- 
diate and  sole  object  of  its  efforts  to  propagate  Christianity 
among  the  heathen. 

I must  not  extend  my  remarks,  already  twice  as  many 
as  I anticipated  they  would  be  when  I commenced,  by 
stating  in  detail  the  grounds  on  which  gentlemen  in  our 
southern  States  have  been  elected  into  the  Board,  and 
still  act  with  it ; but  must  simply  say,  that  the  members 
of  the  Board  in  all  parts  of  the  country  are  men  in  good 
standing  in  the  churches  where  they  reside ; men  of  re- 
spectability and  influence  in  the  community  ; men  who 
seem  to  love  our  common  Redeemer,  and  who  seem  to  be 
hearty  in  their  desires  to  promote  his  cause  and  save  the 
heathen  ; men  who  give  personal  labor  and  influence,  and 
their  property  to  this  work.  Would  it  be  consistent  with 
the  spirit  of  Christianity,  or  with  kind  and  fraternal  feeling, 
for  men  of  this  character  in  one  part  of  our  country,  and 
with  reference  to  such  a work,  to  say  to  men  in  another 
part  of  the  country,  We  will  have  no  fellowship  with  you 
in  converting  the  heathen  to  Christ  (a  work  which  both 
acknowledge  to  be  right  and  obligatory),  because  on 
another  subject  we  think  you  are  greatly  deficient  in 
duty,  or  are  guilty  of  heinous  transgression  ? We  will 


19 


not  be  associated  with  you,  we  will  not  receive  your 
money  ? 

What  would  be  the  result  1 The  Board  would  become, 
not  only  so  far  as  southern  support  is  concerned,  but  also 
at  the  north  too,  strictly  and  exclusively  an  abolition  for- 
eign missionary  society ; and  if  other  partizans  on  this 
subject  should  act  in  a similar  manner,  there  would  be  a 
colonization  foreign  missionary  society,  and  a slave-hold- 
ing foreign  missionary  society ; and  perhaps  other  socie- 
ties to  embrace  other  classes  of  friends  to  the  conversion 
of  the  world  to  God,  who  entertained  some  opinion  on  the 
disputed  question,  different  from  these  three. 

The  same  separation  should,  for  similar  reasons,  be 
carried  into  all  our  other  great  religious  and  benevolent 
societies.  And  why  should  not  similar  divisions  be  made 
to  run  through  all  our  societies,  grounded  upon  different 
and  conflicting  views  which  their  friends  entertain  on 
other  great  questions  of  morals  or  politics  ? What  a scene 
of  division,  contention,  and  inefficiency  would  our  Chris- 
tian community  then  present ! How  fatally  would  some 
of  the  strongest  cords  which  bind  the  church  together,  in 
this  day  of  excitement  and  separatism,  be  sundered  ! 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  honor  of  Christianity  and  the 
efficiency  of  the  church  require  that  each  of  our  religious 
and  benevolent  institutions  should  confine  itself  most 
strictly  to  its  own  sphere  of  action,  leaving  others  to  pur- 
sue their  objects  in  their  appropriate  way  ; and  that  the 
friends  of  each  object,  as  their  judgment  and  ability  may 
direct,  should  rally  around  the  appropriate  society,  uniting 
and  cooperating  gladly,  where  they  can  ; and  in  regard 
to  other  objects  and  other  institutions,  differing  kindly, 
where  they  must  differ.  Thus,  each  one  doing  what  his 
hand  and  heart  find  to  do  with  his  might,  the  work  of 
subjecting  this  world  to  Christ  will  be  all  accomplished, 


20 


though  by  persons  and  in  ways  which  to  us  seem  often 
most  unsuitable ; and  when  we  shall  arrive  at  the  hill  of 
Zion  above,  and  sit  down  there,  finding  ourselves  sur- 
rounded by  our  fellow-Christians  of  every  class  and  com- 
munity, then  seeing  eye  to  eye,  we  shall  look  back  to- 
gether on  the  complicate  scenes  in  which  we  acted  while 
on  earth,  and  through  which  we  were  guided  by  heavenly 
wisdom,  and  be  surprised,  that,  with  all  our  imperfections 
and  mutual  jealousies,  we  were  ever  honored  with  doing 
any  service  for  our  Master ; though  we  may,  perhaps,  be 
permitted  then  to  see  that  our  very  partialities  and  emu- 
lations were  necessary  as  motives  to  quicken  our  ease- 
loving  souls  into  laborious  diligence,  or  to  substitute  a 
watchful  search  after  right,  for  that  indiscreet  zeal  which 
complete  unity  and  unquestioning  confidence  are  so  apt 
to  engender. 

Very  respectfully  and  truly,  dear  Sir, 

yours  in  the  common  labors  of  the  gospel. 


. 

!' : [,  ^ S„2?^lS ' ” 


■ 

^ ,vi:,.jS:  J'> 

- " ■v  ' ' •• 


;Jfei  - 


